Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-08-18
OF IMPEACHMENT.

In receet trial in San Frantis:eo a
Federal Judge ruled, upon the question of
Impeachment of witness, that it. was ad-
Missile 30 prove, in support of the wit
ness, that in the community where he was
best known his character was never dis
cussed OF his reputation for tnlthfulness
never debated by his ueighbors. This rul-
ing represents the advance of the law from
the unreason of the old common law rule.
Formerly, and within the history of the
present generation, witness who could
mot testify that he had heard the character
of the assailed party discussed, was incom-
petent. 1t was a harsh and arbitrary rule
of the law, and proceeded upon the theory
that he whose character was not brought
into such question as to invite debate con-
corning his trEthfulness, was really, if the
term can be excused, characterless. A
witness called to testify to reputation was
asked if he Knew the reputation of the
party for truth and Feracity-honesty and
integrity being subjects then excluded =
and if he replied that he did, he was asked
what that reputation was. On cross
examination it was permitted of the oppos-
ing party to inquire into the means of
knowledge upon which the answer was
based. If the response was that the wit
ness had never heard the character of the
accused discussed; that no one spoke i'll
of the man, nor yet announced their belief
in his truthfulness, the witness was dis
missed, and whatever answers he may have
made were excluded from consideration by
the jury.
Gradually the doctors of the law have
been drawing away from this narrow and
illiberal system, but it required long and
severe struggle to advance reason above
the old common law rule, and make a new
common law doctrine more in harmony
with the dictates of common sense, until
now by that process of judicial legislation
which makes the unwritten law of the
modern, it is declared by the Courts that it
is one of the best evidences of mans up
Brightness, that the people of the commu-
nifty in which he resides do not discuss the
question at all.
The Federal Court referred to went so
far as TO say that if mans character is
discussed by his neighbors and declared to
be good for truth it is to be assumed that
there has been an attempt to smirch 1t.
This is going too far according to the stan
dards of every day common sense. For it
is a fact that the character of good man
is often discussed because it is pattern OF
probity, and men speak of it out of enthu-
siasm for its virtue, to emphasize their
estimate of it, and to present it rs pat
tern. In such cases there is not behind
the expression any assault which occasions
the commentator and no smirching "
whatever. 1t is not probable that the
Court referred to would, if charging q
jury, instruct it that debate of character
presupposes assault upon it, primarily
The new rule is but another evidence tina,
the law is progressive science, that il does
not forever bind itself to precedent or re-
main prisoner to ancient rules and max.
inns when broader reason, tolerance and
humanity bids it to adapt itself to the
march Of intellect and the advance of in
tellipence